For all the Bigoted Bakers, Fanatical Florists and Pharisee Photographers

[martybegan]

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

That's you. You want to punish the gays for being gay because it goes against your religious beliefs. That is the bottom line here. You religious people always have to have a group to oppress. It's happened throughout history. Women, blacks, now gays. I wonder what group will be next??

Not mine, theirs. You keep getting that wrong.

And you want to oppress these religious people, how does that make you better?

Oh right, it's because you think its "fair", so screw them.

Yeah, these are probably the same "innocent" arguments people like you used to oppress women and black people too when you were forced to serve them and treat them as human beings.

So you assume I'm racist and sexist now? Do you have to demonize anyone that disagrees with you?

 

[ChrisL]

Expecting a business person to treat his or her customers equally is not forcing my views upon them. Your entire post is nothing but bullshit and poor excuses for discrimination and bigotry. The business owners are NOT the victims here. If they weren't discriminating, they wouldn't have a problem. Their outdated religious beliefs have no place in the secular business world of America.

Yeah, I didn't think you would understand.

I understand that you are full of crap. The simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot serve the public, then don't go into a business in which you are expected to serve the public.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

That's you. You want to punish the gays for being gay because it goes against your religious beliefs. That is the bottom line here. You religious people always have to have a group to oppress. It's happened throughout history. Women, blacks, now gays. I wonder what group will be next??

Not mine, theirs. You keep getting that wrong.

And you want to oppress these religious people, how does that make you better?

Oh right, it's because you think its "fair", so screw them.

Yeah, these are probably the same "innocent" arguments people like you used to oppress women and black people too when you were forced to serve them and treat them as human beings.

So you assume I'm racist and sexist now? Do you have to demonize anyone that disagrees with you?

I'm just reading your posts. The content of your posts belies your claims that you are not prejudiced against gays, somehow think you have the right to decide who "deserves" to be treated as an equal.

 

[MarcATL]

Pretty amazing that people who think themselves open minded start discussions with insults. Can't really understand that sort of myopic hubris. Or maybe he does't think himself very open minded, that would make sense.

Your inability to address the point is duly noted. But I'll make is simpler for you.

Why is it okay for "Christians" to ignore some parts of the Bible to make money but not others?

It means one thing brother, that they are not Christians. The Bible, and Jesus himself, speak about self-proclaimed Christians and their likely fate. It's literally prophecy fulfilled that you're witnessing.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

What did Jesus say about those who show noting but disdain for the Bible, what Jesus said, or religion in general but then try and use all three to make some sort of point?

You tell me.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Jroc]

Refusing to participate in a gay wedding because of your religious beliefs is just that religious liberty

You totally have the freedom not to be in that line of work.

don't want to bake a gay wedding cake? You have the option to not own a bakery in a state where their rights are protected.

You totally miss the definition of liberty because you're moron

 

[MarcATL]

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

Getting rid of homophobia is a compelling government interest.

I have no particular dog in this hunt, but how does non-acceptance of a behavioral quirk that affects perhaps 2% of the population reach the level of "compelling government interest"?

Destruction of everything right, good and what America has always stood for is essential to rebuilding the country in the liberal's image. Kinda like tearing down a church to build a whore house.

Unless the church became overrun by whores. Money whores. Remember what Jesus did to them the last time? Yep, he tore down that church.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Tore it down? LOL He flipped some tables

Symbolism my dear. Symbolism.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Jroc]

What if they live and have family in Oregon?

Joe, if you were a gay graphic designer specializing in billboards and a Christian popped in to ask you to print a "Homosexuality is a sin against God" billboard for a busy highway, and you turned them down on principle JUST for that order (they'd been in your shop before ordering "puppies are cute" and "gas and food next right" billboards before), would the Christians then have the right to sue you for discriminating against their 1st Amendment civil right to freedom of religion? The PA law in Oregon says business owners cannot discriminate against customers' civil rights. All of them. Not just your favorites.

Yeah, Sil, ain't going to happen. I know you keep trying to find that "gay" vendor you can force into printing something homophobic, but that's a political statement, not a civil right. So you guys lose, again.

Frankly, I'm always confused as to why you homophobes spend so much time hating. I have to honestly wonder what is missing in your life that you need to pick on someone else who really isn't bothering you.

LOL..You're one of the most bigoted, miserable, haters on the board. You hate Jews ,Christians, "rich people" insurance companies, business owners, America, ect ..You're a joke

 

[MarcATL]

How would they know? Well, in order to register, they have to get the address of the people they are working with, and if the bride and groom have the same address, they'd know they lived together, wouldn't they.

I didn't even hit on divorce, mostly because the bible is all over the map on that subject. But if the baker said, "Hey, weren't you in here two years ago with some other dude?" they'd know.

As far as knowing if someone is a virgin, Well, the bible has that totally covered.


22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die:because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Right? I mean, that's totally in the bible, and Jesus didn't change the rules, did he?

Nope. WE changed the rules. Just like we changed the rules on homosexuality.

You stumbled out of the gate. Fell flat on your face. Thanks for playing

He always does, then he'll wave around some misplaced scripture...thinking he's throwing it back in your face.

I shellacked him on Testaments and Covenants and he's still butt hurt

No you didn't. You haven't explained it. You are a queen in your own head aren't you?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Dude, I have no interest in you or your nonsense. You're just annoying.....and very stupid

You have no valid response to my sound arguments because you are wrong. Plain and simple.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisL]

You stumbled out of the gate. Fell flat on your face. Thanks for playing

He always does, then he'll wave around some misplaced scripture...thinking he's throwing it back in your face.

I shellacked him on Testaments and Covenants and he's still butt hurt

No you didn't. You haven't explained it. You are a queen in your own head aren't you?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Dude, I have no interest in you or your nonsense. You're just annoying.....and very stupid

You have no valid response to my sound arguments because you are wrong. Plain and simple.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Exactly. She calls people "annoying" for posting their views on a message board because that is all she has left.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

All religions use selective readings of their texts to live by.

Religion is flexible that way for the believer.

So even though you may be technically correct there is no reason why a christian cannot selectively interpret their bible to use as a guide for their life.'

It is not about religious technicalities it is about individual rights and freedoms. Chief among these is the individual right to discrimination.

Discrimination is a basic human right regardless of how one discriminates. It is nothing more than the free and peaceful association or disassociation with others based on preference. It harms no one and is no one else business least of all the governments

 

[Soupnazi630]

Not your call to make, and not government's call to make unless there is harm, and thus a compelling government interest.

Getting rid of homophobia is a compelling government interest.

Done.

It is a way of thinking and no government has any business or interest in controlling the thoughts of it's citizens

 

[martybegan]

Figures you would quote that crap. Again, government doesn't control us, we are supposed to control government. only a Statist twat such as yourself gets that wrong again and again and again.

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

I agree that works for non-necessary services, but even the libertarian in me realizes certain commerce requires all comers to be served. Gas stations, medical care, travel lodging, base necessities, and of course, anything related to a government/transit/utility service.

 

[martybegan]

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

Good idea in an ideal world where everyone is honest about their intentions. As you can see by this board alone, that is NOT the case. These people want to be able to be bigots and not be called out on it. Instead, they are the victims of the gays and the government.

You have yet to offer any proof of my bigotry. Try again.

 

[MarcATL]

Figures you would quote that crap. Again, government doesn't control us, we are supposed to control government. only a Statist twat such as yourself gets that wrong again and again and again.

What both sides get wrong is that we are the government. There is no separation. We built the cities, the towns, the roads, the power grid, etc. We created and continue to create the government. It is not some alien overlord, it is us. When a business opens, it does not do so in a vacuum. It exists because we exist. Take away the "we" and all you have is an empty store front gathering dust. That is not being a statist, that is pointing out obvious fact.

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

There is a reason why our laws are not setup to allow for discrimination. It doesn't work. It would promote and perpetuate bigotry and discrimination. You are leaving it up to individuals in society to approve or disapprove of any given discrimination. Most people are thinking of themselves and/or their family, so what doesn't affect them wouldn't move them. The government had to step in to rectify the bigotry and discrimination multiple times throughout our history. Leaving it to society wasn't cutting it. So no, that's not a good idea at all.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[martybegan]

OMG, the gays are ruining my life. They want to be married and they actually EXPECT to be served at stores. My God, the NERVE of those heathens! What an insult to the conservative Christians that they might have to actually serve a gay person!!! Yup, must be the end of the world.

Meltdown achieved.

I think I am going to reward myself with a nice Fresca, or maybe a Caffeine free Diet Dr. pepper.

I was imitating you and your friends. You are all SO upset by the gay people, and you just can't leave them alone and let them live their lives the way THEY see fit. This will NEVER be a truly "free country" with people like you all running away, denying people equality because of your God.

Not my God, their God.

I am upset by people like you who seek validation of your beliefs through forcing others to behave in ways they do not want to, for no good reason. and having your feelings hurt is not a good reason.

Black people were not pissed off because they couldn't sit at a woolworth counter, they were pissed off because the laws created a situation where they were powerless to change the fact they could not sit at the woolworth counter.

The overt noticeable discrimination was a symptom, not a cause.

ROTFLMBAO @ you speaking for blacks.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

it's my observation, not speaking for anyone. and was it really the not getting lunch at woolworth that was the main issue, or the lack of access to education, voting, and economic mobility?

 

[ChrisL]

The problem is the progressive side things government is the "owner" in the relationship.

And your view would be more correct if we haven't created a new over-class of professional politicians, and a bloated bureaucracy that, at the local level, often influences who gets elected far more than the "normal" citizens in said jurisdiction.

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

Good idea in an ideal world where everyone is honest about their intentions. As you can see by this board alone, that is NOT the case. These people want to be able to be bigots and not be called out on it. Instead, they are the victims of the gays and the government.

You have yet to offer any proof of my bigotry. Try again.

Sorry, but if you think it's your "right" to practice prejudice and bigotry in your business dealings, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, I didn't think you would understand.

I understand that you are full of crap. The simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot serve the public, then don't go into a business in which you are expected to serve the public.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

 

[martybegan]

I don't think so. I think the problem is that we tend to isolate ourselves within our own world view and forget that there is more than one world view. Calling something progressive or conservative does not make it good or bad. But we slap a label on it and base our judgments upon that label without even considering the idea itself. So we lock ourselves into boxes from which we cannot exit. These professional politicians are actually quite sensitive to normal citizens, but the key to that is the word "citizens" is plural. This is why the tea party was so successful. But they ultimately failed because they also locked themselves into a box, forgetting that they are not the only citizens.

The reality is that within this relationship there is no owner. There is only the relationship and the roles we each play within that relationship. Remove the relationship and the Koch brothers are just another couple of hairless apes hunting for grubs under a rotting log.

When one side has people who think their world view is the only valid one, THAT is where we get into trouble. It's not all progressives, but some of the more vocal ones just don't want you to be wrong, they want you to be ruined and silenced.

I know it used to be social conservatives back in the "moral majority" days that took that tactic, and they were wrong to do so, but today progressives are the ones trying to stifle free expression, from demands of punishment for guys like the scientist with the 'sexist" shirt (designed by a woman) to the whole "micro-aggression" thing going on in Universities.

Both sides do it pretty much equally. This is not a political trait, it is a human one.

Back to the issue here, I admit I have been torn on the issue. On the one hand, I fully understand the importance for a community to prevent discrimination. On the other, the very same reason I have been a long time supporter of SSM is the reason these laws make me unhappy. I don't think the purpose of government is to tell us how to live our lives. So I have come up with something of a compromise - which I am certain will never be enacted but I'll share anyway.

Rather than prohibiting discrimination - and I mean this across the board - what if we just required people to be up front about it? If a bakery doesn't want make wedding cakes for same sex weddings, have them post a notice in their window so consumers know they can't obtain one there. If a hotel doesn't want to serve black customers, let them post that on their sign so there is no confusion. If a business wishes to discriminate they are free to discriminate, they just have to let people know. If a business does not notify someone up front that their custom is not welcome, then they have to provide their services. Truth in advertising.

Good idea in an ideal world where everyone is honest about their intentions. As you can see by this board alone, that is NOT the case. These people want to be able to be bigots and not be called out on it. Instead, they are the victims of the gays and the government.

You have yet to offer any proof of my bigotry. Try again.

Sorry, but if you think it's your "right" to practice prejudice and bigotry in your business dealings, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

That's not proof of any bigotry. try again.

 

[MarcATL]

The thing is, people don't have to believe what you think they should believe. That does not change the validity of their belief.

NO, guy, the problem is they are using a selective reading of their holy book in order to rationalize their bigotry.

That didn't fly 50 years ago when Southern Bigots tried to exclude blacks from their hotels and it doesn't fly now.

All religions use selective readings of their texts to live by.

Religion is flexible that way for the believer.

So even though you may be technically correct there is no reason why a christian cannot selectively interpret their bible to use as a guide for their life.'

It is not about religious technicalities it is about individual rights and freedoms. Chief among these is the individual right to discrimination.

Discrimination is a basic human right regardless of how one discriminates. It is nothing more than the free and peaceful association or disassociation with others based on preference. It harms no one and is no one else business least of all the governments

We are all free to discriminate in private, not in the public sphere. A business is for the public.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[ChrisL]

I understand that you are full of crap. The simple fact of the matter is, if you cannot serve the public, then don't go into a business in which you are expected to serve the public.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others.

I wonder if you think people should not be "forced" to serve women and blacks or other minorities too? Sorry, but if you open a business, you must follow the laws put forth by your respective state. You can stomp your feet and whine about it all you want. We are NOT going back to a time when businesses can lock certain segments of the community out.

And you don't see that as forcing your beliefs on others. Please do look up the definition of "bigot".

Bogus. I suppose you think black people and gay people are bigots for wanting equal rights and privileges, when it comes to business matters? Your argument sucks. Face facts. YOU are the bigot for wanting segregated stores!!! You make me want to hurl with your false narratives and bogus excuses.

Wow, now you are really going off the deep rails. You HAVE to implant some nefarious reasoning onto people that disagree with you, you just can't accept a rational person would have a differing opinion.

THIS is what has become of the modern left, sniveling children who can't stand being told "you are wrong."

Why else would you be against equal access?